Talk:Gold standard

Gold supply vs. economic growth

Can someone explain to me what happens in gold standard economy if the net economic growth is larger than the growth of the gold supply? By my reasoning the gold will become increasingly valuable, causing deflation. As I understand it deflation is poison in a consumer driven economy. I might be mistaken about these points but it would seem to be a powerful objection against this system being put to use in a modern economy. Thank you.
--Thorseth (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You are correct on both counts. If money supply grows more slowly that the economy, deflation will result. Deflation leads to a hoarding of money and reluctance to buy consumer goods (as they will be cheaper in the future), this can lead to an economic recession. In Monetary Reform (1924), Keynes argued against the reimplementation of the gold standard by the British government for exactly that reason. LK (talk) 18:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, global economic reality does not bore this theory out in practice, i.e. no one waits to buy a computer or TV or automobile or typewriter today under the premise that the same identical product will be available cheaper next year (even if it clearly will be, thanks to technological progress and productivity improvements). Keep in mind that Keynes theories have been somewhat discredited in the decades since they were first put forth, in much the same way as prior economists' theories before him.137.244.215.51 (talk) 19:35, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Above is misleading, the highest rate of economic growth ever achieved in the US was under the gold standard during a deflationary period. Specifically the late 1800's. Deflation results when the production of goods increases at a faster rate then the production of gold (or perhaps the minting of gold coin). An increased propensity to save is a must for this to happen as savings "fund the building of new factories".

It's actually a "virtuous circle". Savings fund factories which produce more goods, which cause money to be worth more (deflation), resulting in high "real interest rates" which increase the propensity to save.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent Revert

please advise what you find objectionable about my edit.

The section I edited is plainly wrong of a number of its statements. I revised that section and provided citations backing up my changes. What didn't you like? 71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello!71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Your more recent additions are unsupported OR opinion. I'm reverting them. Your earlier addition also suffered from OR, but is more workable. I'm reintroducing some parts of the edit. As to what I find objectionable, much of it was irrelevant, and evidence attempts at synthesis to imply a position. In particular, just because the Fed (might have) caused the Great Depression, this does not mean that the Gold standard did not prolong it. LK (talk) 03:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Both Bernackee and Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman have stated that the Great Depression was caused by Federal Reserve policies and not the gold standard. That is now a mainstream opinion. It is fact that the US went off the gold standard in 1933 due to the Roosevelt confiscation and the Great Depression continued until the late 30's. It is also fact that the Roosevelt Confiscation was to save the Federal Reserve from defaulting on its 40% gold backed notes. It's hard to pay 100% when you only have 40% and everyone and his brother would rather have gold coin then a promise of gold coin through a 40% backed Federal Reserve notes. Especially when that reserve keeps dropping since everyone is afraid of bank paper, having seen a few thousand banks go belly up during the bank panics. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It is mainstream opinion that under a gold standard interest rates are generally higher since there is no central bank "printing gold" to lower interest rates

It is mainstream opinion that higher interest rates induce people to save.

It is mainstream opinion that when there is high inflation there is no incentive to save as the only thing saving gets you is lower purchasing power in the future.

Let me know if you are mainstream by either accepting or denying the above.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not mainstream and is so out there it belongs with the flat earthers "in part due to the Federal Reserve's reluctance to abandon the gold standard and float the U.S. currency as Britain had done" - Federal Reserve reluctance meant jack since it was Congress that had to act to drop the gold standard. If the Federal Reserve stopped converting its demand notes into gold it would have gone into default - Can you say BANKRUPT! Which it almost did anyway and was saved by the Roosevelt Confiscation71.184.184.238 (talk)

Again, whether the Fed caused the Great Depression does not deny that the Gold Standard prolonged it. Please stop trying to introduce goldbug POV into an Economics article. LK (talk) 02:47, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Per Irving Fisher, http://fraser.stlouisfed.org/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf (see top of page 341) the main causes of depressions are high debt levels and deflation. High debt levels before the Great Depression were caused by the Fed easy money policies of the 20's. The housing bubble we still haven't gotten over was caused by the Feds easy money policies of the early part of the decade. Alan Greenspan pointed out that the US was on a "quasi gold standard at the time"

http://www.constitution.org/mon/greenspan_gold.htm With a logic reminiscent of a generation earlier, statists argued that the gold standard was largely to blame for the credit debacle which led to the Great Depression. If the gold standard had not existed, they argued, Britain's abandonment of gold payments in 1931 would not have caused the failure of banks all over the world. (The irony was that since 1913, we had been, not on a gold standard, but on what may be termed "a mixed gold standard"; yet it is gold that took the blame.) 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

As for being a goldbug I support the US Constitution! Do you? http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec10 No State shall...make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

wiki already reflects the fact that high debt levels can cause problems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt-to-GDP_ratio Debt-to-GDP measures financial leverage of an economy; some economists, such as Steve Keen, advocate using it as the key measure of a credit bubble (both its level and its change – particularly of private debt and total debt), and high levels of government debt (public debt) are widely decried as fiscal irresponsibility.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

About the addtions that 71.184.184.238 has been pushing to include:

• Saving is encouraged due to higher real interest rates since there is no central bank "printing gold" to drive them down.

comment: unsourced and wrong

That deserves a ROTFLMAO! You really think that you will have LESS incentive to save if the bank pays you 10% versus the current sub 1%?71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• Going into debt is discouraged as higher real interest rates make it more expensive to go into debt.

comment: unsourced and wrong

That deserved a even bigger ROTFLMAO! You really think that you will go deeper into debt if you PAY 20% interest versus say 5%?

• As debt levels are lower, it reduces the chance of major financial panics/depressions caused by snowballing debt defaults.[22] The debt levels prior to the Great Depression and the current Great Recession were at historic all time highs.

comment: wrong since debt levels are not lower under gold standard, this contention is unsourced, and source does not mention gold standard

See quoted text in cite by Fisher.

• Many economists believe that economic recessions are largely caused by increasing money supply during economic upturns leading to dislocations in the economy which lead to recessions from a misallocation of resources.[23]

comment: improperly sourced. Ben Best is not even an economist. LK (talk) 23:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Can Best parrot an economist? http://www.benbest.com/polecon/rothbard.html71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:V where it says that the burden of proof is on the person who wants to insert or reinsert material. You are edit warring and reinserting unsourced or poorly sourced POV synthesis. Please stop inserting unsourced material without consensus. Also, please watch your tone, and remember to be WP:POLITE. LK (talk) 02:40, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Do You REALLY think that if the bank offers you $20 (20% interest) a year to keep a hundred bucks with them, they you will have LESS incentive to keep that $100 with them then if that bank offered you the current sub $1 (under 1%) interest.

Do you REALLY think that you are more likely to go into debt to buy a house when mortgage rates are at 20% then if they were lower such as the current 4-5%?71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:34, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Per wiki policies: Cites are needed for material LIKELY to be challenged. Forgive me for thinking that wiki editors are smart enough to know that there in LESS chance of a person going into debt at higher real interest rates and a greater chance of that person increasing his saving at higher real interest rates and the greater rewards received from those higher interest rates.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The onus is always on the person who wants to add to the article, to show that reliable sources directly support the added statements. See WP:V. IMO, the additions are blatant POV OR synthesis. If you feel otherwise, please start a WP:RFC or ask for a 3rd opinion on the issue. Do not keep on adding it back without a clear consensus. LK (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel a need for help answering the questions below, please feel free to request that help.

Question 1: Do You REALLY think that if the bank offers you $20 (20% interest) a year to keep a hundred bucks with them, that you will have LESS incentive to keep that $100 with them then if that bank offered you the current less then $1 (under 1%) interest.

Question 2: Do you REALLY think that you are more likely to go into debt to buy a house when mortgage rates are at 20% then if they were lower such as the current 4-5%71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither of the questions have anything to do with the accuracy of the text you are introducing.

Q1: You are assuming that interest rates will be higher without a gold standard (patently untrue, have you checked your bank a/c interest rate lately?), and then committing synthesis to come up with a novel conclusion.

Q2: Again, you are assuming that interest rates will be higher without a gold standard.

Those questions do not address the accuracy of the text you are introducing. I am challenging your text, you are required to provide a source that directly supports them before reintroducing them. Also, please restrict your sources to those that directly address the topic of this article, ie. the gold standard, otherwise you are introducing original research by synthesis. If you keep on reintroducing the statements without proper sourcing, you are edit warring to introduce OR into an article. Doing so is against policy and can result in your being banned from Wikipedia. Stop edit warring. LK (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you aware that the Federal Reserve, like all central banks "prints money" in order to drive down interest rates? and are you aware that gold which is an "element listed on the periodic table" simply can't be "printed" with the liberal application of wood pulp and ink?

To further address your question, are you aware that money tends to "gains value" under a gold standard as the economy tends to grow faster then the increase in gold supply from mining, while under a "fiat standard" money tends to loses value as central banks print it at a faster rate then the economy grows. A saver doesn't even have to take his gold to the bank for interest to be rewarded for saving, he can stick his gold in a hole in the ground and a decade later it will most likely have greater "purchasing power". Another way the importance of the finance sector is reduced. The average person JUST DOESN'T NEED IT except on rare occasions.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me spell it out for you. Until and unless you produce reliable sources that directly support your claims, I (and no doubt many other Wikipedians) will immediately revert your addition of unsourced OR. LK (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Let me spell it out to you as well. Anyone who states that higher interest rates do not reward savers and punish debtors is living in fantasy land. Say hello to to Dorothy for me. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Constitution

The Founding Fathers thought enough of the gold and silver standards to include them in the US Constitution. They thought so little of "fiat" money that they refused to include the power to print money into the Constitution.

When you get out of fantasy land we can have a productive discussion, until then you should go and get a fantasy land mortgage at 20%. In fantasy land that is considered "rewarding" while in real life it is downright PAINFUL.71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Please stop the OR and personal attacks.

I should also remind you that there's quite a large world - and many countries and currencies - beyond the borders of the USA, and in this world the economic beliefs of a small group of 18th-century American politicians are not considered sufficient to overturn modern evidence-based economics. If you have some good sources that directly support your arguments, let's see these sources.

bobrayner (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The founding fathers had DIRECT PERSONAL experience with hyperinflation. Look up the Continental. They knew quite well what they were doing when they stripped language from the Constitution allowing the feds to print paper money. Yes! You read that right! The Founding Fathers STRIPPED language allowing the feds to print money from the US Constitution. A power one is STRIPPED of is a power one does not have, except illegally through usurpation. Usurpation is next door to treason.

BTW: Does modern evidence based economics say that a central bank can "print gold" through the liberal application of wood pulp and ink?

Does modern evidence based economics say that a saver is rewarded MORE if he gets 10% interest instead of the current sub 1%?

Does modern evidence based economics say that a debtor is punished MORE by incurring debt at say 20% versus the current 5%?

Does modern evidence based economics say that a financial panic, caused by rolling defaults as one default causes another to default which causes another to default etc etc, is MORE or LESS likely with low debt levels?

Happy spinning and don't drink the cool aid!71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Savers, investors, and the gold standard

I've just reverted an edit by 71.184.184.238 which claims that "Deflation rewards savers and punishes debtors resulting in an society less burdened with debt". This is a tricky issue, so I should explain the full economic theory here.

In the long run, the only impact of deflation is to put a floor on the minimum real interest rate, as the nominal rate is bounded by zero. Just like any price floor, if the price restriction is binding, this will result in excess supply in the market. In this case, there will be an excess of savings, and a deficit of investment demand in the financial markets. This is in general not a good thing (like most price restrictions), as it gums up the workings for the financial markets, and so reduces the efficiency of investments, and thus the growth rate of the economy.

In the short run, if deflation happens unexpectedly, deflation will cause an unexpected jump in realized real interest rates, and this indeed does reward savers and hurt debtors. However, this does not result "in an society less burdened with debt". On the contrary, as the debtors now owe more in real terms, the amount of debt in the society actually increases. This was what occurred during the Great Depression (see debt deflation).

LK (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Not tricky in the least. Higher real interest rates reward savers and therefor provide an incentive to save more. Higher real interest rates also punish debtors and therefore provide a DIS-incentive to go into debt. A society that rewards savers and punishes debtors is a society with a lower level of debt. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 09:47, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed that you said that one of the problems is "an excess in savings". That deserves a laugh! I have yet to hear of ANYONE seriously complaining about having too much savings! How about you? Do YOU have too much savings? 71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there can be such as thing as too much savings. I think that is exactly what they are having in Japan after decades of low inflation and deflation in their lost decade. Excessive saving means that the aggregate demand of an economy decreases, and that economic growth decreases with it. It's all within the paradox of thrift as Keynes described it.TheFreeloader (talk) 19:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The problem with Japan is that it has a lot of old people who want to retire with enough savings to live a comfortable life. So they save.71.184.184.238 (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You could say that. Although I would think that it would fit kinda neatly into your theory, that deflation encourages saving, to say that the high savings rate in Japan has been caused by the deflation they have had. But, whatever the explanation you ascribe as the reason for their saving, the point is still the same; it is an example of a too high savings rate bringing down the growth of an economy. Thus excessive saving can be a bad thing for an economy as a whole, as described in the paradox of thrift.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

What is killing the Japanese economy is too much government diverting too many people away from producing goods and services. The more people working in jobs that are a net drain on the economy the worse the economy performs. Taking from those that produce to give to those that leech of off the system (while leeching on it yourself) is a guaranteed road to disaster. Just ask the former Soviet Union, Pol Pot's Cambodia, or Mao's China.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

So it's because they are communists in Japan? Well, actually if you look at this List of countries by tax revenue as percentage of GDP, it shows that Japan is actually taking in less taxes than the United States compared to the size of their economy. Japan is actually the developed country with the lowest tax revenue on the whole list. So good try, but it doesn't explain their lack of growth. Also the whole premise, that government spending is disastrous for an economy, doesn't seem to hold true either when you cross compare the list of tax revenue with a list of countries by GDP per capita. There are quite a few countries towards the top of both lists.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

A governments share of the economy is not JUST what it takes in in taxes, it includes what it borrows. Why don't you add the massive structural Japanese deficit of roughly 50% and see how it tastes when you smoke it.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The closest I could get that is these statistics(note that the figure for the US isn't very useful, as it doesn't include state and local). Again you see that Japan is well below a lot of countries which have not experienced the same growth problems that Japan has.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The numbers in your link blow. The amount showing is taxes collected (at least for the US), and I don't think that federal spending as a percent of GDP has been around 15% (as your link shows) since probably the 1950's. If it can't get the US right, the odds of getting another countries right blow even worse! BTW: So an not to be misunderstood - for every yen the japanese government takes in in taxes, it borrows another yen. That is what I mean by a 50% structural budget deficit http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/06/japans-demographic-collapse.html

It's not just the size of Japan's current debt that worries observers; it's how fast it's growing. Government receipts totalled only $463 billion in 2000, while its expenditures were $830 billion. The $367 billion difference--a staggering 40% of the budget--was borrowed, with the government issuing some 33 trillion yen of new bonds to fund the new debt. Deficit spending is now a mind-numbing 9% of the entire GDP.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

For 2009 Japan borrowed MORE then 50% of what it spent (see 2009 second revised budget - showing 52% of total revenues was through debt. http://www.mof.go.jp/english/budget/e20091225b.pdf71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I found some better numbers from the OECD[1](gotta go to the first spreadsheet with general outlays,it includes all levels of government). The story is the same again there, the Japanese public sector spending is continuously below the OECD average. And if you stay in that file, you can go the spreadsheet which shows net debt interest payment to see why the size of Japanese public debt really doesn't matter. They still pay less to service their debt than the average in the OECD. This I think is quite reflective of both how much deflation and how much private savings they have in Japan to push down the long term interest rate. But to go straight to the central point, whether or not deflation promotes growth in developed economies, if you go to real GDP in this spreadsheet and to the GDP deflator (you can use consumer price too) in this spreadsheet and take the averages for the entire period in both you will see that there is quite strong correlation between deflation/too low inflation and low real GDP growth. That can be seen not just in Japan (which has had 1% deflation on the average and 0.8% average growth) but also in Germany (with 0.8% inflation and 1.1% growth) and Switzerland (with 0.8% inflation and 1.7% growth). TheFreeloader (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what your links are supposed to show, but they don't show what you say they do.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

You have to go to the right spreadsheets. In Microsoft excel you choose which spreadsheet to view in the bottom left hand corner. In the first file you find total government government budget on the first sheet, Annex Table 25 General government total outlays. In the same file you find net interest paid for public debt as a percent of GDP on the seventh sheet(annex table 31). In the second file, real GDP growth on the first spreadsheet (annex table 1), and in the third file you find the GDP deflator on the first spreadsheet (annex table 16). You can also use the CPI which is the third spreadsheet in that file. You take the averages by inserting into a field "=average(" and then marking fields you want an average of.TheFreeloader (talk) 17:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at those spreadsheets and frankly when looking at the Japanese numbers, I can't find much of a connection between them and the official Japanese numbers "provided by the Japanese government" in my link above. If the author of those spreadsheets can't get his numbers right for the worlds second largest economy then it is likely his other numbers are off as well.71.184.184.238 (talk) 23:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Those happen to be numbers published by the OECD as a part of their most recent economic outlook. I would think the OECD is quite a credible institution when it comes to collecting and publishing economic data. So you are probably just comparing the wrong numbers.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Its still a fact that they don't tie to the official Japanese numbers from their Ministry of Finance. HHHHMMMMM! Using bad information is almost guaranteed to get you bad results. Perhaps you should reexamine your preconceived biases. Like your bias that the gold standard is a BAD thing. I'm now going to pose you a question which you should try to answer truthfully. If you had a large sum of money which you expect to need in 50 years, and did not want to touch until then, which way would your store it to best preserve its purchasing power, in ounces of gold or in paper dollars?

Neither, I would have them in stocks and bonds, which is what would be best for society too, as then the money would be put to use elsewhere, while I didn't need them. It is exactly this kind of behavior that moderate inflation encourages people to have. For society to get the most out of the resources it has, people should not be holding their savings in cash, they be should investing them.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your biases are pushing you to avoid answering the question. I didn't give you the option of stocks and bonds. I gave you the option of dollar bills and ounces of gold. Please answer the question as given.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I probably would go with gold if I had to choose just those two for such a long period of time. But you have to know that I think it is false premise to start with. I have already explained why I would not want a society where cash would be a good long term investment. You want people to put their capital in actual investments, which creates something useful for other people, instead of just using it as mattress stuffing.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Aren't you aware yet that deflation makes cash a good long term investment? and accumulating cash is the best way to help the economy since you then have it to start a "small business". The best driver of economic growth known to man. Money in a bank goes to feed the voracious government need to spend spend spend and is a net drain on the economy. Most of the rest of the bank money goes to feed big business, the ultimate guard of the status quo. Few big businesses care to invest in groundbreaking technology as that technology will make large parts of their existing business model dead. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Japan's demographics are not very different from other developed countries. And even if it were, it would still be a valid example of why 71.184.184.238's simplistic ideas are flawed, as TheFreeloader says.

bobrayner (talk) 09:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Flawed how? Even a dufus first year economy student knows that in order to invest in new factories you need savings. no savings = nothing to invest. Nothing to invest = no new factories. No new factories = stagnant economy. Growing population + stagnant economy = lower living standards. Happy Great Recession to all!71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

That's all very good, but what you fail to consider is the demand side of the economy. If demand is falling because people will rather save than spend their money, it means that companies won't have any reason for building new factories as they don't have anyone to sell extra goods they produce to.(That is unless they are able to export their products, but the whole world can't have net positive exports at the same time). And then you just start "No new factories=" in your line of reasoning to find out what happens. You also make the false dichotomy that either people have to save too little or (at least what I regard as) too much. There can be growth in savings, without it having to mean a decline in demand, as long a the growth in savings stays under general growth of the economy.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Economic records of US economic growth show the best percentage gains were in the late 1800's under the gold standard. Saving result in investment in new factories, new factories produce goods at lower prices resulting in deflation, deflation rewards savers and punishes debtors increasing the incentive to save, increased incentives result in more savings, more saving result in more investments in new factories etc etc etc This is what is know as a virtuous cycle.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Here you take a very special case, namely the industrialization of the United States, and make it into a general theory. This seems to me a lot like saying that because China experiences 10% growth per year right now, all countries could get 10% growth if they just did as China does. It doesn't work that way. Industrialized economies do not need the same levels of relative investment that industrializing economies need. And without that need for investment capital, high savings rates will just mean a decrease in aggregate demand.TheFreeloader (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

China's money right now is quite a bit more "gold like" then it was under Mao! Money that doesn't change value removes one of the uncertainties of doing business. Less uncertainty = more investment. More investment = higher economic growth rate.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

You are leaping from one argument to another. China's monetary policy is in no way "gold-like", all they do is that they copy the monetary policy of their major trading partners, none of which are on the gold standard. China did not have deflation in the last couple of years, a thing they definitely would have had, had their currency been tied to gold. Also, I wouldn't call it any kind of certainty the way the American inflation rate under the gold standard oscillated between massive inflation and massive deflation[2]. It is pretty hard to imagine how anyone ever would be able to get a mortgage under conditions like that. Or how companies could ever be able to raise capital with corporate bonds. All debt would have to financed very short term, as there would be extreme uncertainty over what money would be worth in the long term.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I said "more" gold like as in more stable, then their currency under Mao. As for the US, during the 19th century the general condition was a gradual deflation, punctured by bouts of inflation around the major wars. The value of money changed little overall and was in fact MUCH more stable then the 20th century, which saw the purchasing power of the dollar reduced by 95%71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by the term "gold like", the value of the renminbi is in no way determined by the price of gold, or any commodity. Were the the price of gold to fall to a tenth of its current value would it probably have no effect at all on the value of the renminbi.

You seem to be unaware that under Mao China had a pretty high inflation rate. You also seem to be unaware that around 2000 China went through a period of deflation lastin a number of years. A health currency is a pre-requisite fro a healthy economy.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:01, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

When it comes to certainty in inflation, it doesn't mean much the long term value of the currency changes. It is all about how volatile the inflation rate is. If borrowers and lenders can know that the central bank is determined to keep inflation within say a 2 percentage points band of 2% inflation, all that they need to do is just add 200 basis points to whatever real interest rate they want for the money. On the other hand, if the inflation looks like the heart attack chart, that the American inflation looked like for most of the period the money was backed by commodities, I doubt that even the smartest quants on Wall Street could figure out a fair medium term interest rate.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:07, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Drivel. Ubder a gold standard, without a Central Bank printing money people know that the vakue of their gold will be about the bame or slightly greater next year. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a dufus first year economy student could point out how much Japan's industrial output has grown over the last 30 years. After all, there's lots of savings available to be invested in factories, right?

bobrayner (talk) 16:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps then again perhaps not! Is he smart enough to adjust that growth for changes in the value of the yen? and is he smart enough to adjust the "personal savings rate" with the 50% structural deficit of the Japanese government to get a truer picture of the savings rate? Inquiring minds want to know!71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try to stop insulting people who disagree with you.

Deflation is a Bad Thing. I added some extra sources to support this; can add more (from a wide range of sources) if necessary. Since deflation is a Bad Thing, I moved that paragraph to the "Disadvantages" section.

bobrayner (talk) 12:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It's only a bad thing if you are in debt. If you have savings it is a GOOD THING! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Economies are complex systems which include both debtors and savers - plus some complex interactions between them.

The sources I used (it only took a few seconds' search) made it clear that deflation is a serious threat to economies as a whole, not just one arbitrary subset of people within an economy.

If you don't like those refs, there are plenty of others out there which make much the same point.

bobrayner (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Economies are simple in one very important respect. They are all composed of businesses that have to make a profit in order to survive. Too many blood sucking leeches makes making a profit almost impossible. No profits = Businesses going bust.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:17, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

These are your kids playing with your savings http://www.educationforum.co.uk/hyperinflation.htm 71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Those aren't my kids. That's an article about the economic problems of Weimar Germany. If you are trying to make a point, could you make it a little clearer, please?

bobrayner (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a picture of worthless fiat money and the future of your dollar savings, assuming you have some(most Americans don't and live paycheck to paycheck).71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

71.184.184.238 is a classic example of someone suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect. Fascinating to observe, irritating to deal with. LK (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo is a classic example of someone suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect. Fascinating to observe, irritating to deal with.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Do drop me a note when you have obtained your PhD in economics, or published your first peer-reviewed paper. LK (talk) 14:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Do drop me a note when you figure out high real interest rates reward savers and punish debtors. I might then be able to have an intelligent conversation with you. Then again perhaps not. I learned that when I opened up my first savings account and it WASN'T hard to learn. Something about how much interest the bank way paying me. ROTFLMAO!!!!

I think this is getting a bit too personal. Can't we concentrate on the article, please?

bobrayner (talk) 14:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't help it if Lawrencekhoo has delusions of braindom. It doesn't take much in the way of grey matter to figure out that higher real interest rates benefit savers and hurt debtors. See above for Lawrencekhoo's comment that what I just said is wrong! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thinking about I'd have to say that most 5 year olds are smarter about money then most adults. If a 5 year old has a buck and you want him to loan it to you, the first thing he'll probably ask is "how do I know you will pay me back?". A question most adults skip right over.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Deflation in China

Is anyone here aware that China, the economic powerhouse of the globe, has had several years of DEFLATION this decade? If not, then live and learn

http://www.indexmundi.com/china/inflation_rate_(consumer_prices).html71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, clearly their average inflation of 2.2% is a great example of the advantages of deflation. Though it might be a good example of the problems associated with not having a free floating currency.TheFreeloader (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Funny thing! You seem to avoid the fact the the economic powerhouse of this decade has had several years of deflation. Funny how you treat deflation as a boogieman. Are you AFRAID of having your money worth more? or is it that you are in hock up to your eyeballs and don't have any money?71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

How is this OR

Severe recessions/depressions are less common under a gold standard then under a fiat standard.

cited by http://www.amatecon.com/gd/gdoverview.html The Federal Reserve Board was created in 1913 and yet half of the worst depressions happened after its creation.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to be convinced that page qualified as a WP:RS. It also doesn't mention the gold standard. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

OR and RS are not the same. For it to be OR I need to be the first to "research it". I obviously am not!71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis is a part of original research. To infer any new/unmentioned conclusions from references is synthesis and therefore also original research.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Nowhere in the reference provided does it say that severe recessions were less common during the gold standard. The reference doesn't talk about the gold standard at all, so to infer anything about the gold standard from that reference would constitute synthesis which is a part of original research as Wikipedia's policy describes it. Also that website looks to me like a self-published source which wikipedia generally doesn't regard as reliable sources.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

How many brain cells does it take to notice that the gold standard was greatly weakened by the creation of the federal reserve in 1913? and are those brain cells currently active or are they kept under lock and key so that they don't disturbed your preconceived biases?71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Any logical conclusion you might be able to draw yourself, no matter how obvious they seem, are not usable in wikipedia. What matters in wikipedia is what reliable sources have to say about the subject.TheFreeloader (talk) 03:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The conclusion was drawn by someone else. Your objection is of zero worth.71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, then show me where that conclusion was drawn, because I certainly don't see it in that reference. In general I think it is a bad idea to use references which do not mention the main topic of an article. You will almost always be making original synthesis when doing that.TheFreeloader (talk) 05:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The conclusion drawn was that there were more severe recession/depression after the creation of the Federal Reserve, then before it. As you should know, being an editor on this page, the creation of the Federal Reserve marked the point where the US went from a true gold standard to a standard only 40% backed by gold. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't blame gold for the failings of the Fed

It is now widelly accepted that the Federal Reserve caused the Great Depression, and it is widely accepted that the Federal Reserve caused the current Great Recession. Both were caused by loose monetary policies favoring debtors and punishing savers, making conditions favorable for the creating of "dominoes" (overextended debtors) who would fail when the soft brown stuff hit the air pusher. Those dominoes failed in the 30's just as they are failing now, leading to a nasty economic downturn.

To quote Krugman

To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble." -Paul Krugman NYT August 200271.184.184.238 (talk) 01:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You can't spend what you don't have

I don't what economic backwater wiki editors come from but in the real world EVERYONE knows that you can't spend what you don't have. Try going to a TV store, picking a nice big one and walking out the door with it without paying. I am certain that the store owner will not be amused, neither will the men in blue who will shortly thereafter show up, and neither will the jury you will have to face. In fact I believe the only one amused by the whole situation will be "Bubba" as he will have another "toy" to play with.

It is blindingly obvious that a central bank that "can't print gold money" can only purchase as much government debt as it has gold in its vaults.

FYI: A majority of people think that ANYTHING that limits government spending is a GOOD thing. Notice that the vast majority of states are required by law to have a balanced budget.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey Mr. 71.184.184.238, why don't you get a Wikipedia ID? it doesn't have to be a real name or anything. It just makes it easier to refer to your posts. WH Coordinator (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I find the general level of wiki editors to be so low that I would not lend my good name to your benefit. Notice above the great imitation of of a village idiot done by Lawrencekhoo, who can't quite comprehend that higher interest rates benefit savers and punish debtors. The fact that a second wiki editor thinks it is OR to say that "you can't spend money you don't have" is a close runner up in the race for best village idiot. Are you going to ban me now for answering your question?71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

No; however, insulting people is bad, and if you continue to do that you might get banned. If you are not aware of the rudiments of etiquette I could, perhaps, point you to some simple online guides. In the meantime, how about we try to find some way to improve the article?bobrayner (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The rudiments of etiquette require me to respond to "truthfully" respond to your question. I can't help it if you don't like the response. Do YOU think that higher interest rates reward savers and punish debtors, because if you don't then we don't have any common ground on how the article can be improved. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

wiki Citations are needed for items "likely" to be challenged

Having already provided 4 cites that savers benefit from higher real interest rates, and debtors are penalized by same, I now wait to see what other "plainly obvious" facts the economically brain dead wiki editors of the gold standard article want proof of.71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Those two claims alone are quite uncontroversial. However, the edifice you build on top of those claims is not. This has been pointed out in the past. If you are unable to scroll back up this talkpage, or if you do not see the difference between the two claims you've just given here and the pseudoeconomic text you just put in the article, I could point out the differences again. In the meantime, it would be better to discuss on the talkpage than to keep on adding text to the article against consensus.

Also, insulting people won't make them agree with you.

bobrayner (talk) 10:30, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

So why have I had to spend a month or more pounding it into certain thick skulls if they are so uncontroversial? Notice a certain possessor of an EXTRA thick skull denies that those two facts are even true. See his comment above.

As what I have built on top of that is nothing more then the fact that if savings is rewarded you get more of it, and as a result you get the benefits of having more savings. If getting into debt is punished then you get less of that and also less of the bad stuff associated with high debt. The benefits of a gold system flow directly from rewarding savers and punishing debtors, with a side order of not having your money "printed to worthlessness".71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please try to discuss, and get consensus, on the talkpage instead of repeatedly re-adding controversial content to the page. bobrayner (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

That savings is good and debt is bad is not controversial.71.184.184.238 (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Still waiting for "substantive" objections that amount to something other then "I don't agree with the facts"71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The burden of evidence is always on person who adds new material (WP:BURDEN), and the claims you are making in your edits are clearly not fully supported by the sources you cite. If the claims you make are so obvious, then it should be easy to find reputable experts in the field of economics who say the same. If that is not possible, then what you have add does not belong in wikipedia. I would recommend, that if you think the advantages of the gold standard are being misrepresented in this article, then find some Austrian economists or someone else who supports the gold standard and cite some of the advantages to the gold standard they mention. Do not just make up your own arguments for the gold standard, they will always be regarded as original research.TheFreeloader (talk) 12:23, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I consider most of what I wrote to be at the "Well DUH!" level of economic knowledge AND THEREFORE NOT LIKELY TO BE CHALLENGED. The "Well DUH" level of economic knowledge should be well below the expected knowledge of a wiki editor attempting to edit an article relating to economics. Please provide specific statements that you believe need citations.71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that you really should assume anything to be obvious in an area as complicated as monetary economics. When it comes to what needs citations in the additions you have made, I am afraid I have to say pretty much everything. It simply just isn't enough to cite data and historical evidence if you do not cite someone who make the same conclusions, else it will be regarded as original synthesis. When you make a claim in wikipedia, it is not enough to just prove it, you need to cite some reputable source who has come to the same conclusion.TheFreeloader (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I already cited TWO people who point out that the best period of economic growth for the US was in the late 1800's under a "Well DUH" gold standard.

It is basic economic fact that high real interest rates reward savers and punish debtors. I feel a "Well DUH" moment coming on.

It is basic economic fact that if you reward someone he (or she) will do more of it - like increase the interest one gets on savings and you get more people saving. Yup! another "Well DUH" Moment.

It is basic economic fact that if you punish someone he (or she) will do less of it - like increase the interest one pay for debt, and you get fewer people willing to go into debt. Yup! yet another "Well DUH" Moment.

It is a basic economic fact that the more savings available, the more there is available for investment. Yup! yet another "Well DUH" Moment.

It is basic economic fact that if the pool of savings is not large enough to cover all those who want to borrow it will go to those who are most likely to pay it back - aka the most "credit worthy" borrowers. Yup! yet another "Well DUH" Moment.

It is basic economic fact that big business is "more credit worthy" then small business. Yup! still another "Well DUH" Moment.

It is basic economic fact that big business which is already at the top of the economic food chain, has NO INTEREST in disrupting that food chain, lest it end up falling from the top. Small business on the other hand has an interest in disrupting that food chain, because that is the only way it will end up at the top. In small words economic growth is due to "small business" innovation. Finally something a little complicated but widely known to just about anyone who reads the news.

Having had enough of "Well DUH!" moments for the day, I now wait comments.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, if all those things are so basic and obvious, then it really shouldn't be too big a problem to find sources which support it. About the growth in the nineteenth century, then it isn't enough to find someone who says that there was strong growth then. You need someone to who says it was because of the gold standard that there was strong growth then for it to be mentioned here. To just put the two things together is again synthesis.TheFreeloader (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I did provide a cite which states that the economy outperforms under a gold standard.Are you SURE you read my edit?71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The cite in question states --- ^ http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/robinsr082410.html The Ethics Of Gold Ron Robins "What modern economists choose to forget is that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries while the world was on a gold standard, global economic growth was unprecedented"71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:46, 26 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk)

That's unlikely to pass muster as a WP:RS. Since this is such common sense, surely it's not too difficult to find a solid source for your claims. Ravensfire (talk) 14:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion - mine differs -besides if you look at the wiki article on the Gilded Age you will see that wiki already accepts the fact that gold had a part to play in the best economic performance in the history of the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age#Economic_growth

The Gilded Age saw the greatest period of economic growth in American history. After the short-lived panic of 1873, the economy recovered with the advent of hard money policies and industrialization. From 1869 to 1879, the US economy grew at a rate of 6.8% for NNP (GDP minus capital depreciation) and 4.5% for NNP per capita, despite the panic of 1873.[7]The economy repeated this period of growth in the 1880's, in which the wealth of the nation grew at an annual rate of 3.8%, while the GDP was also doubled. Real wages also increased greatly during the 1880's.[8] Economist Milton Friedman states that for the 1880's:

The highest decadal rate [of growth of real reproducible, tangible wealth per head from 1805 to 1950] for periods of about ten years was apparently reached in the eighties with approximately 3.8 percent.[9]"

Austrian Economist and scholar Murray Rothbard stated that for the 1880's:

Gross domestic product almost doubled from the decade before, a far larger percentage jump decade-on-decade than any time since.[9]

Capital investment also increased tremondously during the 1880's, increasing nearly 500%, while capital formation doubled during the decade. Rothbard states that:

This massive 500-percent decade-on-decade increase has never since been even closely rivaled. It stands in particular contrast to the virtual stagnation witnessed by the 1970s.[10]

Long-term interest rates also declined to 3 to 3.5% for the first time, reaching the same level as Britain and 17th century Holland.[11]71.184.184.238 (talk) 22:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

This document doesn't mention the gold standard, so is inadequate as a reference for things like "This fact, combined with the deflation common to gold standard economies result in higher real interest rates under a gold standard, compared to a fiat standard." I'm going to revert it, and related recent edits. CRETOG8(t/c) 01:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity why aren't you deleting all the other material in this article which lacks cites?71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That document BTW is a citation for the low level of debt under a gold standard. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Where in that cite does it even mention a gold standard? It uses the word "standard" only once, and nothing about gold. Please hash out the changes you want to make here on the talk page instead of this edit war trying to force them in. Ravensfire (talk) 02:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Lets try this S L O W L Y ! That document is a citation for the low level of debt under a gold standard. Look at the chart you are told to look at in the cite.71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

W P : S Y N T H E S I S - there, you should understand that. NOTHING in there talks about the level of debt being low under a gold standard. Hey - there's a graph! Great - with nothing there about a gold standard. You're wanting to extrapolate information from multiple sources to get what you why. See WP:SYNTH. From what you've said, it surely can't be that hard to find a decent source that explicitly makes the points you want to make. Surely. Ravensfire (talk) 03:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

BULLCRAP! The US government SHOWS debt levels were lower under the gold standard

TO be ABSOLUTELY CLEAR

This "These higher real interest rates act to reward savers and punish debtors, resulting in an economy less burdened with debt."

is backed up by this http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11659/07-27_Debt_FiscalCrisis_Brief.pdf Federal Debt and the Risk of a Fiscal Crisis - a publication of the Congressional Budget Office dated July 27, 2010 - see chart on page 2

Notice the instructions to "see chart on page 2" with said chart showing historical debt levels helpfully provided courtesy of the US Government.71.184.184.238 (talk) 03:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

(continuing to look at the initial bullet point - ec'd with you, so will respond)

In that same bullet point, right before this, you've got a red flag for synthesis - "This fact, combined with ... results in ...". You need a source right there, explicitly making that point, and you don't have it. I'm still trying to find something about the next few points in Fisher's document (nice read, btw - quite interesting). If you could point to specific para's, I'd appreciate it. Interestingly, he says in 41 that the depression may have been prevented by continuing the open-market purchases being made by the Fed in '32, but would have required abandoning or modify/devalue the gold standard. In 44, he blames the over-indebtedness on the gold-base being too small relative to silver. I'm not seeing much other commentary on the gold (or any other fixed base) standard. Ravensfire (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Fisher is only used to support the fact that "excessive debt leads to a "propensity" for financial panics"71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

So nothing to support the conclusion that "This makes overextended debtors much less common " - WP:SYNTH. You're stringing together small basic facts that are somewhat sourced, but you aren't sourcing your conclusions. You need to find sources that explicitly make that point. Ravensfire (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That common is so stupid it beggars belief. The more debt there is the more debtors there who are overextended (also known as "dominoes"). The chance of a the "dominoes falling" increase with the number of dominoes. To put it visually. Imagine a table with ONE domino (Really really low debt levels). It falls. It does not start a chain reaction because no other dominoes exist. Now put another domino (debt levels are higher) on the table AT A RANDOM POSITION, if one falls there is a chance it will knock down the other if they are close enough. I hope we can agree that the odds of that are really really low. Now the debt level reaches crisis levels and there are 1,000 dominoes on that table. If one falls there is a chance that it will cause another to fall because the dominoes are now much closer together. If they are all close enough (i.e. they have enough interlinking financial obligations is Wall street speak) any domino falling will start a chain reaction and most if not all the dominoes will fall. The more debt there is the more debtors there are. The more debtors the more overextended debtors (aka dominoes). Lower debt levels = fewer dominoes. Comprende? If you don't you have a SERIOUS problem.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I did actually look at the chart. There's a reason why I'm saying it's not what you say it is. See that word "resulting"? NOTHING in the source takes A " higher real interest rates act to reward savers and punish debtors" and says B "resulting in an economy less burdened with debt" under a gold standard. The chart shows high debt starting around 1860, slowly dropping off around 1878/79, spiking in 1917/1918, and again in the early 30's, then massive in the 40's, sliding back until the 70's. So there's high debt both on and off the standard, but the major spike in debt load was due to an external event (WWII) and the load came off fairly decently until the 70's. That graph does not make the entire point - there's a great deal of interpretation AND you have to go to another place to get the dates of the start and end of the gold standard.

No, that source does not back up that statement. Ravensfire (talk) 03:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The source show s government debt levels to be WAY lower during the gold standard era then during the fiat era. It PROBABLY (this is SARCASM)has something to do with a central bank being able to create money out of thin air to buy government debt and the lower interest rate levels that money creation causes, but that's only supported by "generally accepted economic thought".71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if there was a chart showing unambiguously lower U.S. debt under a gold standard, that wouldn't be an adequate source. First, it would be looking only at the U.S., and if I were looking for quality original research it would need to include more countries. Second, it would still be original research unless the source (and a reliable source) argued for the connection. Third, it still wouldn't cover the issue of "higher real interest rates". CRETOG8(t/c) 07:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Above you imply that the chart does NOT show generally lower debt levels during the gold standard era versus the fiat standard era. I strongly advise you to learn to read a chart.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what the chart does or does not show in your opinion. It will always be synthesis for you to read causality into a chart like that. Another thing, I think you should work on finding a reliable source which actually states that implementing the gold standard will result in higher real interest rates, as so much of the content you have tried to add has centered around that assertion.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not my opinion that the the chart shows generally lower debt levels during the period the US was under the gold standard. The chart does in fact show that the US had generally lower debt levels during the period the US was under the gold standard.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No, but it is your opinion that the lower debt levels were caused by the gold standard. The source does not state that. If you try look at the examples given in wp:synthesis, those examples of synthesis are pretty much exactly the same as what you are trying to do here. And as Bobrayner pointed out, you can put pretty much any data together in that manner to imply the most outrageous things. You could just as well say something like this: "The fedora was a popular piece of headwear up through most of the twentieth century, but as Nixon took the dollar off the gold standard in 1971[3], the fedora fell out of fashion[4]".TheFreeloader (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That would be a solid NO! It my opinion, and the opinion of just about everyone out there, that debt is lower when one is not "spurring to spend". see comment from Bernanke below. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:35, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well then, you should not just insert your own opinion then, you should cite those other people who agrees with you to make clear that it isn't just original research/synthesis.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:57, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now done so!71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:29, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TheFreeloader here. We could just as easily create a chart showing debt or growth trends correlated with popularity of certain types of hat (personally, I like the stovepipe). That wouldn't mean that headwear fashions are the driving force behind national economies; because correlation is not causation. And there are lots of other countries with their own millinery markets. bobrayner (talk) 12:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

If either YOU or I created the chart it would be unacceptable and would be OR. This chart was notcreated by either you or I, and was in fact created by an agency of the Federal governemnt, which is generally considered to be a reliable source.

71.184.184.238, you have repeatedly tried to evade clear wikipedia standards through your use of bluster and insult. As you have seen, you are getting nowhere with this approach. If you ever decide that you really want to improve the article, as opposed to just edit warring, you will start playing by the rules. Plazak (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have more relevant cites in my addition then the average for the rest of the article and as pointed above at least one of my points is already included in another wiki article article. What is you problem? 71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

A central banks prints money to "Lower interest rates". Absent that bank printing money to lower interest rates, interest rates would be higher. That is BASIC economics. Does anyone disagree with this BASIC economic fact?

and I'm still waiting for an answer as to why you people don't delete the TONS of uncited material in this article. Sounds like a POV issue on your part.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Which other parts do you think lack citations? We could work on that, at least. bobrayner (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think my material is either BASIC economics that doesn't need citation or already has enough citations. It's not MY problem that is causing an argument, it is your unreasonable requirements. What EXACTLY do you have a problem with?71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:34, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As to what I think needs citations why don't we start with the GLARINGLY OBVIOUS "citation needed" comments all over the article. Why don't you spend your time constructively and find some.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this "TONS of uncited material" a real problem that you would like to deal with, or is it a rhetorical device? If the former, please point out the bits that particularly need citations, and we can try to improve the article. If the latter, we know it's irrelevant to your original point, and hopefully you do too now, so perhaps you should try to think of a better way to support your original argument. bobrayner (talk) 14:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Try looking for "Citation needed". It should not take long, and I continue to notice you avoiding answering a question on BASIC economics. Gotta wonder.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:22, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should try the sections marked "This section does not cite any references or sources". Much much easier.71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

71.184.184.238, as I said on your talk page, do NOT edit other people's comments on this talk page as you did here [5]. Ravensfire (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

That was an accident. I was attempting to respond to that comment.71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Just in case wiki editors are STILL unclear on the concept

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bernanke-Fed-will-take-action-apf-4107566310.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

Bernanke stopped short of committing to any specific action. But he raised the prospect of another Fed purchase of securities, most likely government debt or mortgage securities, to drive down rates on mortgages and other debt to spur more spending by Americans.

It is my "hope" that wiki editors can make the connections that if one is "spurred to spend" that the other side of the coin is that once can't save what has now been spent because it's GONE.71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC).

My "hope" that wiki editors can make the connections that if one is "spurred to spend" one can't then save what he has been "spurred to spend" has taken a drastic downturn with the comments in the following section. I blame it on brainwashing and public miseducation!71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Restored material with more cites and word tweaks to more closely conform to the cites

Please state you objections to the revised material here. It was getting crowded above.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:27, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I think all three points lack sourcing for their central arguments. The first has no source for the gold standard creating higher real interest rate, no source for the gold standard reducing private consumption, and (most importantly) no source saying that these things (higher real interest rates and lower private consumption) are actually good for an economy. The second point has no source for the claim that the gold standard will result in more investment towards private industry. And for the third point are there no sources supporting the claim that the gold standard makes it easier to save for retirement. I can just say it again, it is not enough for you to try and prove the claims you are making, you need cite someone who actually makes the claims you are making.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:00, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Try reading this again - Bernanke stopped short of committing to any specific action. But he raised the prospect of another Fed purchase of securities, most likely government debt or mortgage securities, to drive down rates on mortgages and other debt to spur more spending by Americans.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

and this - "Todd E. Petzel, chief investment officer at Offit Capital Advisors, a private wealth management concern, characterizes the Fed’s interest rate policy as an invisible tax that costs savers and investors roughly $350 billion a year. "

and this - The Ethics Of Gold Ron Robins "What modern economists choose to forget is that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries while the world was on a gold standard, global economic growth was unprecedented'

and this - Gold Standard by Michael D. Bordo The period from 1880 to 1914 is known as the classical gold standard. During that time, the majority of countries adhered (in varying degrees) to gold. It was also a period of unprecedented economic growth with relatively free trade in goods, labor, and capital.

and this - “Debt is the ultimate bomb that can create downturns like we had,” says Tony Hallada, a principal with LarsonAllen Financial.71.184.184.238 (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You are taking little bits and pieces and infer the most outrageous conclusions from them. That to me is the very essence of synthesis. Most of the central points you are making are in no way directly supported by the citations. Most of them are simply inferred by you from sources with no or little relation to the subject at hand. The claims you make needs to be directly (explicitly) supported by the citations you make, they should not just be inferred in the manner you do it.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Exactly what is outrageous? I'm pretty darn sure that those looking to retire are feeling the effects of getting jack for interest income, thanks to the Fed. Those already retired and looking at the interest income that was supposed to supplement Social Security are cursing up a storm as well. I know because I fall into one of those two groups and I wish Greenspan and Bernanke and their fellow travelers a "warm reception" upon their passage from this mortal coil. I think the traditional Jewish hell of boiling in shit for eternity sounds about right. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:31, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is outrageous to take statements out of context the way you do. Most of the statements you use have nothing at all to do with the gold standard, and many of the people you cite are directly against the gold standard. I just don't see how that is fair way to use citations. I don't see either why you can not just find some people who actually support the gold standard and use their arguments, instead of patching together support for your own arguments from little bits and pieces of comments taken out of context.TheFreeloader (talk) 09:51, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The gold standard does not punish savers as does the fiat standard and that lack of punishment has certain good results. I am listing a portion of those good results.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The gold standard, unlike the fiat standard, punishes debtors. That also has some good results. I am also listing a portion of those good results.71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Freeloader - Is this cite more to your liking? - http://reason.com/archives/2007/08/27/a-new-golden-age - A New Golden Age?

In the bigger picture, one thing that happened in the period the U.S. was on a gold standard from 1789-1971 was that America’s middle class got wealthy, went from being dirt farmers to being the most prosperous middle class the world has ever seen. Since [1971, when Nixon completely disengaged the dollar from gold] basically we’ve been going sideways at best. If you measure in inflation-adjusted terms, for the last 40 years we’ve been going nowhere; to the [extent there’s been progress] it’s been because households have had two earners instead of one.71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, at least it's actually about the gold standard, so that's a start. But to me it looks like the only advantage to the gold standard he actually mentions in the interview is that of (long term) price stability, an argument which is already represented in the article.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

He is plainly stating that the economy performs better under a gold standard. How did you miss his comment "40 years of going nowhere"?71.184.184.238 (talk) 20:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The opinion, which he has, that fiat money somehow creates permanent stagnation in an economy is, as I see it, in no way prominent enough, even among gold standard supporters, to be mentioned here (as per WP:UNDUE).TheFreeloader (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment only shows that you haven't checked the opinions of those who support the gold standard. Further: As mentioned above wiki ALREADY states that the gold standard was influential in making the late 1800's the fastest period of economic growth in US history. Why are you trying to censor a point of view already appearing in a wiki article?71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This quote sums it up pretty well "(If)You have to choose between trusting to the natural stability of gold and the natural stability and intelligence of the members of the government. And with due respect to these gentlemen, I advise you, as long as the capitalist system lasts, to vote for gold." George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

This quote is prescient - http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_98/mcintosh030898.html "Obnoxious debt loads and how to service them will be the defining economic issue for years to come. Debt service has become a leech sucking the vitality of the global economy."

How about this? http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_99/lyons091799.html Question: Under this type of a system it is virtually impossible for the general public as a whole to accumulate wealth. Answer: Correct. Technological advances will give the impression of wealth enhancement, but real wages and standard of living in relative terms will stagnate or decrease.71.184.184.238 (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Yet more cites which due to the acts of certain wiki editors I am unable to include - I particularly like "the bloomin obvious" statement by the BBC and the Econ 101 reference from kiplinger

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/robertpeston/2008/12/why_punish_savers.html

Part of the reason we're in such an economic mess is that, over the past few years, we (that's individuals and businesses, in this case) borrowed considerably more than we saved.

To state the bloomin' obvious, our previous excess of borrowing over saving has now led the banks to lend considerably less than they were (to deleverage, to use the ghastly jargon), which has been a principle cause of the economic contraction that looks increasingly like a nasty recession.

http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/07/23/low-interest-rate-policy-punishes-retireessavers-rewards-speculatorsbanksglcs/

Low interest Rate Policy Punishes Retirees / Savers, Rewards Speculators / Banks / GLC’s July 23rd, 2010 | Author: Contributions

Our goverment’s policy of maintaining cheap money/low interest rates (below inflation) for the last few years is really punishing (there is a more accurate word starting with “s” ) retirees/savers and making it easy for speculators/banks to borrow cheap money and make big profits to pay huge bonuses.

When we were young our leaders tell us all the time to save for old age, and now we, who have saved and supported this govt. for decades see our savings earning less than 1% p.a. while inflation is running at 2% to 3% ? Of course monetary officials don’t care as they earn fat salaries and do not rely on interest income to meet expenses. How do we live ok with less than $5k interest on $500k deposit ( even if we have this amount)?

http://www.wisebread.com/the-us-government-wants-you-in-debt

I’m going to out on a limb and make the bold statement: the United States government wants you in debt, rather than you saving money.

Federal Reserve policies have forced the average one-year CD interest rates to currently below 1.5% APR. In addition, the FDIC recently ruled banks that are not “well capitalized” will not be allowed to sell fixed investment products for more than 75 basis points (or 0.75%) above the national average. This effectively punishes savers and fixed income retirees, while rewarding people who have debt with lower loan rates.

https://www.kiplinger.com/columns/editor/archives/janet_bodnar.html

that good news comes just as Americans are being encouraged to spend money to help lift the economy out of recession.

Assuming that Econ 101 hasn't been turned completely on its head (like so much else these days), people do tend to act in their own best interests -- especially if incentives don't push them one way or another. That's where we got off track over the past few years. With the country awash in easy credit, especially for home buying, the incentives were skewed toward borrowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mybudget360.com/money-markets-cds-401ks-and-savings-accounts-that-lose-against-inflation-a-society-that-punishes-savers/

Money Markets, CDs, 401ks, and Savings Accounts that Lose Against Inflation: A Society that Punishes Savers.

One of the unintended consequences of this housing market is the punishment conservative savers are taking. Last month we had the rather astonishing release of data from the Bureau of Labor and Statistics telling us for the month, that inflation was at 0 percent. As disconnected as this is from reality, there is a reason the Federal Reserve is chopping rates even further and it is the opposite of what they are telling you. Behind closed doors, they are hoping that you go out and spend and go into further debt. In fact, they are setting up a system where savers are actually punished for not spending.

http://news1st.tk/2010/08/hsbc-chief-warns-against-savage-cuts-in-public-sector-2/ HSBC chief warns against savage cuts in public sector

However, he said that the current record low interest rates... were a bad thing as they punished responsible savers and favoured the “irresponsible”. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the Gold standard. Perhaps you forgot. You are trying to turn it into your personal rant/blog. Plazak (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The article contains a section on the advantages of the gold standard prominently featured in the current dispute. Perhaps you missed it.71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:37, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

High debt levels considered single biggest threat to national security - who would of thunk it

http://www.executivegov.com/2010/08/mullen-national-debt-is-a-security-threat/

The national debt is the single biggest threat to national security, according to Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Thank you buyer of last resort for government debt! You have been SO helpfull! ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

To Freeloader - What Ron Paul thinks

http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2009/09/25/should-we-abolish-the-federal-reserve.aspx - the high points

Paul thinks the Fed is the root cause of the financial crisis

Jennifer Schonberger: In the wake of the financial crisis, some in Congress want to give even greater power to the Fed. You want to abolish the Fed. Why?

Congressman Ron Paul: Because they caused all the trouble. A monetary policy of easy credit and artificially low interest rates was the main source of the financial bubble,

Schonberger: So this would be a world with less credit, would it not?

Paul: Yes, there would be less credit, but it would still be steady growth. You would never have periods of economic tumult if you had economic growth of 4% or 5% -- so you would never have the temptation to turn it off. … There would be enough credit, but there wouldn't be an excess amount. … It would be determined by the marketplace rather than by the artificialness of the Federal Reserve.

Schonberger: What is the biggest downside risk to abolishing the Fed?

Paul: I don't know of any risk.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

improper sourcing

For this recent edit, I randomly checked the first three cites for the snippet beginning, "'Since the gold standard rewards savers, there is a greater pool of savings which can be used to make investments and start new industries." None of them is adequate to the task of supporting what they supposedly support. None mentions the gold standard (or fiat currency). I have to assume the rest of the edit is of similar quality, and revert it. CRETOG8(t/c) 02:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Which part of "punishing savers reduces savings" don't you understand?

also

Which part of "rewarding debtors reduces savings" don't you understand?71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

What "points are not addressed", and what "refs are inadequate"? BTW: Did you notice you deleted a citation that you asked for? proving again that your powers of observation are legendary (that's sarcasm BTW).71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC).

What part of "None mentions the gold standard" don't you understand? Your sources need to specifically mention the gold standard when you're trying to describe the advantages of that. You're continually throwing out example after example of WP:SYNTH, which is why editor after editor reverts your changes. Ravensfire (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

IF I DELETED EVERY REF ON THE PAGE THAT DID NOT MENTION THE GOLD STANDARD THE ARTICLE WOULD BE GONE!71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I did notice that I deleted a ref which was in the place where I asked for a ref, but the ref wasn't addressing the gold standard, and so not what I asked for. CRETOG8(t/c) 21:45, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

You asked for a ref that deflation rewards savers. You got and then you deleted it. Your clear focused vision humbles me. BTW: That was also sarcasm.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:09, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

More for Freeloader - Jim Rogers sez

http://www.cnbc.com/id/23588079/Jim_Rogers_Abolish_the_Fed

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke should resign and the Fed should be abolished as a way to boost the falling dollar and speed up the recovery of the U.S. economy, investor Jim Rogers, CEO of Rogers Holdings, told CNBC Europe Wednesday.

Federal Reserve The Federal Reserve headquarters in Washington, DC.

Asked what he would do if he were in Bernanke's shoes, Rogers, who slammed the Fed for pouring liquidity in the system and accepting mortgage-backed securities as guarantees, said: "I would abolish the Federal Reserve and I would resign."

If this happened, "we don't have anybody printing money, we don't have inflation in the land, we don't have a collapsing U.S. dollar," he told "Squawk Box Europe."71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

One of the many cites that keeps getting deleted and supporting the fact that economic growth under the gold standard is (in the quotes words) "unprecedented" is actually one that originated with Freeloader and states http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/GoldStandard.html

During that time, the majority of countries adhered (in varying degrees) to gold. It was also a period of unprecedented economic growth with relatively free trade in goods, labor, and capital.

Seems Freeloader is more then a bit two faced on what that cite can be used for. He feels he can use that cite to support HIS addition but it's "not good enough" to be used by someone else.

His use of that cite - and its addition to this articles content is here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gold_standard&diff=381376136&oldid=381238193

I called that action by Freeloader blatant two faced POV. What do others think?71.184.184.238 (talk) 13:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be alright if it was only that statement you added, that is to say something like "The time during the 19. century where many countries were on the gold standard, the world experienced unprecedented growth". What I object to is the fact that you keep adding your own synthesis around that statement. You just can not write things which aren't directly stated in the cite you provide.TheFreeloader (talk) 14:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if your VAST (sarcasm) knowledge of economics shows a way of growing a economy that does not involve investing. Also let me know if that vast knowledge includes the fact that savings = investing in mainstream economics. So rub those two brain cells together, which economy grows better - one that rewards saving which can then be used to invest in new products and processes or one that punishes saving and REDUCES the pool of money available for investment. To anyone with even a bare smattering of economic knowledge the answers are obvious. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I could think of some reasons why more savings would not automatically translate into more investment. For instance if there is nothing good to invest in because the economy is expected to continuously contract (possibly because of the paradox of thrift). Or because of nominal yields on debt being close to zero, making cash as good an investment as debt. Or because of fluctuations in the short term value of money, making the value of debt uncertain.

I am not saying savings can't lead to investment. I am just saying that not very much is all that certain and obvious in the field of economics, and therefore most claims about economic matters in wikipedia should be accompanied by references.TheFreeloader (talk) 15:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You avoided the question: Let me repeat it - Does your VAST (sarcasm intended) knowledge of economics shows a way of growing a economy that does not involve investing?71.184.184.238 (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, doesn't your hypothesis kinda fall flat if one of the parts of it is wrong anyways. I mean if you could just as well borrow to invest or saving doesn't lead to investment, then how much conclusions worth then? But to your question, I'm actually not that sure there is such a tight relation between the relative investment and gdp growth. Investment was a smaller part of gdp in the 1990's than in the 2000's, as people started investing more in housing in the 2000's.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You need someone to have saved before you can borrow his stash. That's Econ .0001 - and below basic basket weaving. BTW: Your comment about "investing in housing" deserves a ROTFLMAO. Housing is a CONSUMABLE end product. Investing in the economy means investing in the means of production. You know them there things called factories, mines, and power generators. Them there things that "produce". ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The way the Bureau of Economic Analysis divide up the contributions to GDP, residential fixed investment is included under gross private domestic investment. And as I said earlier, investment was 15.8% of GDP in 1996 and 17.4% of gdp in 2006[6].TheFreeloader (talk) 19:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You are getting confused between rental properties and homes. According to this graph http://www.bea.gov/briefrm/resfi.htm that kind of investment fell apart in the middle of the decade, probably BECAUSE the housing building boom killed the rental market. Again - When you find out please let me know what those 18 million EMPTY units are producing, besides roaches and rats.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No I don't think I am confusing anything. Greg Mankiw's Principles of Economics: "Investment also includes expenditure on new housing. (By convention, expenditure on new housing is the one form of household spending categorized as investment rather than consumption.)". To the vacant houses, I can just say, whether something is an investment isn't decided based on its usefulness. What does a factory which isn't being used, because there isn't demand for what it is producing, produce. And that kinda goes to the center of your whole reverse economics argument. The idea you want to pass on as obvious is that if a society just invests enough in equipment and factories, the demand for the products to be produced there will appear on its own. It clearly doesn't work that way, and you will not find any respected economists who claims that.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The item I want included is that increased savings = increased investment (which a basic economic principle - somewhere around DUH!) and that increased investment = a higher economic growth rate (which is also a basic economic principle - also somewhere around DUH!).71.184.184.238 (talk) 11:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are not basic economic principles (if they were there probably wouldn't be this trouble find citations which support them). I have already explained why those assumptions are not always true. Increased savings will not always give more investment as sometimes there just isn't anything good to invest in. And investment doesn't always lead to economic growth as money can be put into unnecessary and unproductive investments.TheFreeloader (talk) 11:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Those principles are in fact that basic. You can't invest when there are no savings available to invest WITH! and without investment there is no way to increase production. 71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there a consensus that only material specifically citing the gold standard can be used as cites in this article?

I would like confirmation of this (IMO EXTREMELY STUPID POLICY) as there are numerous portions of the article which would need to be deleted based on that consensus.

Please confirm this EXTREMELY STUPID CONSENSUS does in fact exist and I will start deletion material contrary to that consensus.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:28, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I would disagree with such a consensus. I do not necessarily object to references here that do not refer specifically to "gold standard" or "fiat currency." What I object to, and what other editors have clearly objected to above, is your use of such references to spin your own pet theories. Plazak (talk) 01:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

A number of cites have been provided indicating that the US did better economically under the gold standard then the fiat standard. To paraphrase the BBC that is BLOOMIN OBVIOUS!71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you know of any way to increase savings by punishing savers let me know. Convoluted thinking makes me smile.

If you know of a way to reduce debt by rewarding debtors also please let me know. As above convoluted thinking makes me smile.71.184.184.238 (talk) 02:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

And none of your cites for that have said that the performance was better BECAUSE of being on a gold standard. You're pointing to a chart and saying "Look! Look!" And then saying that it was obviously because of the gold standard. That's not going to work - that's classic synthesis which should be, to paraphrase the BBC, BLOOMIN OBVIOUS. Ravensfire (talk) 13:17, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

The wiki article on the Gilded Age states that one of the reasons for the exceptional economic growth of that age was "hard money policies". My guess is that your historical knowledge doesn't include the fact that the last of the fiat money greeenbacks of civil war fame were retired in 1879. That article also includes a comment by Rothbard (a big time Austrian School economist) comparing that exceptional growth with the pathetic performance of the 1970's. You should be aware that Nixon severed the last ties of the dollar to gold in 1971, ushiring in the first of the "lost decades" of economic growth under the fiat system. You are now living in the second of those two decades.

Comment that fiat greenback were retired in 1879 is here http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h171.html

comment already reflected in wikipedia are here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_Age#Economic_growth and include ". After the short-lived panic of 1873, the economy recovered with the advent of hard money policies and industrialization." as well as "Capital investment also increased tremendously during the 1880's, increasing nearly 500%, while capital formation doubled during the decade. Rothbard states that:

This massive 500-percent decade-on-decade increase has never since been even closely rivaled. It stands in particular contrast to the virtual stagnation witnessed by the 1970s.

Perhaps these comments by Rothbard "already in wikipedia" might shed more light http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard#Free_market_money

Rothbard believed the monopoly power of government over the issuance and distribution of money was inherently destructive and unethical. The belief derived from Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek's Austrian theory of the business cycle, which holds that undue credit expansion inevitably leads to a gross misallocation of capital resources, triggering unsustainable credit bubbles and, eventually, economic depressions.

Inquiring minds want to know how well the economy grows during economic depressions, of which the Fed has already caused TWO.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Of my other cites on this issue

This obviously is a comment that economic growth under the gold standard was better then under the fiat standard

http://cafehayek.com/2009/08/abolish-the-fed.html But consider: the US economy has actually grown less rapidly since 1914 [the year the Federal Reserve began operation] than it did before.

as is this

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_08/robinsr082410.html The Ethics Of Gold Ron Robins "What modern economists choose to forget is that during the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries while the world was on a gold standard, global economic growth was unprecedented

It looks to me like quite a few wiki editors either have their blinders on or are BLOOMIN BLIND to begin with.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Check it yourself

Handy dandy little tool to check historical economic growth

http://www.measuringworth.com/growth/

Instructions for those that can't figure out what to do

Under US click on the box before "Real GDP"

Inside the two boxes beside that enter the staring year and then the ending year - then click "calculate"

Try from 1790 to 1913 - the years under which the US was "mainly" under a "hard money" standard

From 1913 to 1971 - when the dollar had some ties to gold

and from 1971 to 2009 - when the dollar had no ties to gold

If what you get is surprising to you then you have missed the BLOOMIN OBVIOUS which I have been trying to add to the article for about a month now.

Now adjust what you get by the fact that "household working hours" dropped up to about 1970 and then started rising as the need for TWO incomes were needed to stay in the middle class.71.184.184.238 (talk) 01:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BLATANT POV by Freeloader

Freeloader considers a source worthy of being cited for the gold standards bad points (much exegerated in the article) But thinks that the source MAIN PLUS for the gold standard is not worth mentioning.

Bordo states - "As mentioned, the great virtue of the gold standard was that it assured long-term price stability.". I added that exact quote - word for word - into the article - Freeloader then deleted it.

To remove language on the "GREAT VIRTUE" aka the most beneficial aspect of the gold standard is BLATANT POV PUSH.71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You neglected to put quotation marks around the quote, so don't blame others when they edit the wording. Blatent POV? Not at all. The idea is there, so quit whining. Plazak (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

((ec)) He deleted it? Really? Hmm, I think you should recheck the article, or your vision. It's still there. You should also remember that when you exactly quote something you should, you know, actually quote it, with quotes, and attribution in the article. I'm slightly revising that statement by moving "great virtue" to match the format of the other advantages. Seriously, 71, ease up on the tone of your posts. You are NOT helping anything by your continual accusations (especially when proven wrong). Ravensfire (talk) 16:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I didn't actually delete it. I just moved it, as the general theme is already being covered in another bullet point.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You mean you BURIED it. The "GREAT VIRTUE" aka the most beneficial aspect of the gold standard deserves the top slot in the advantages section- not buried in the body.71.184.184.238 (talk) 16:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

and it's not "A" great virtue, the source states it is "THE" great virtue. Burying and minimizing this main point does in fact show POV bias71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC).

How did I bury it? I put it first in the bullet point. If you'd like to you could move that bullet point up first too, I really doesn't matter to me. Also, I really don't like that you calling me a PoV pusher, I have actually spend quite some time reading through the opinions of gold standard supporters in the interest of wp:writing for the opponent, but simply haven't been able to find any points which weren't more or less covered already.TheFreeloader (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

At top dog it deserves the top spot, not buried. You are a POV pusher. The fact that you delete material favorable to the gold standard and then BURY the top advantage of the gold standard indicates something and that something is NOT evenhandedness.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Last time I'm gonna say this, 71, stop with the personal attacks. The continual belittling of those you disagree with is not helpful here and is tiresome to see time and time again. Reminders, sarcasm and direct requests asking you to stop have not worked, so this is the last direct request I'm making here. I've no issue with discussion, but you carry it beyond the article and into the editor. Stop. Ravensfire (talk) 18:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is tiresome dealing with people that can't quite grasp that savings is rewarded by a higher real interest rate. It's even more tiresome dealing with people that think that buying a house is investing in the economy. Let me know what those 18 million currently empty units are producing when you figure it out.71.184.184.238 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC).

Some people here say that some of additions need more sourcing

Here is one that you would run into "REGULARLY" if you bothered to read economic news. Anyone who questions that a healty environment for small business is the key to economic growth is "BLOOMIN" ignorant.

http://finance.yahoo.com/career-work/article/110572/the-10-things-the-government-could-do-to-cut-unemployment-in-half?sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=#mwpphu-container

Saving Small Business. Economists, Fed Chief Bernanke, and organizations like the Small Business Administration have repeatedly made the point that small businesses are and have been the primary engine of job creation in America. Companies with work forces under 500 create nearly half of private non-farm GDP. Large companies have had easy access to capital markets even with the depressed economy. They have been able to take advantage of historically low-interest rates to stockpile capital.

By contrast, banks have been reluctant to fund small operations that have little or no cash and uncertain prospects and usually a relatively small number of customers. The idea that the federal government should shoulder some of the risk of small business loans has been proposed several times, but no legislation has been passed to support small business bank aid on a wide-scale basis. Without a well-funded small business sector, unemployment is unlikely to improve.71.184.184.238 (talk) 18:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And how is this helpful to improving this article? This isn't a WP:SOAPBOX, please make it relevant. Ravensfire (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It provides backing for my point that under a gold standard, which has more plentiful savings, small business is not starved for capital and can improve the growth rate of the economy to a much greater extent then it can under present circumstances, where it is starved for capital and can't do jack! 71.184.184.238 (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

DUH!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_identity

Savings identity or the savings investment identity is a concept in National Income Accounting stating that the amount saved (S) in an economy will be amount invested (I)

In other words, investment must be financed by some combination of private domestic savings, government savings (surplus), and foreign savings (foreign capital inflows).[1] [2]

The change in inventories brings savings and investment into balance without any intention by business to increase investment.[2]

Adam Smith notes this in The Wealth of Nations and it figures into the question of general equilibrium and the general glut controversy. In the general equilibrium model savings must equal investment for the economy to clear.[1]71.184.184.238 (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)